Aren't Businesses (which pay a large % of the school price) eventually
benefiting enormously from the large families's future children who become
their employees, their future customers, etc? Still, I get the point,
especially from single or childless families. Seems like wealth redistribution
to me. How about this compromise? As a conservative, I'd be willing to
get rid of all of the Republican wealth redistribution programs (the school
funding model, child tax credit, etc.) if the liberals are willing to get rid of
all of the Democratic wealth redistribution programs (welfare, medicaid,
People who choose to have large families should participate in the cost of
educating those large families. That is the only fair method. Eliminate
per-child tax deductions.
"if the liberals are willing to get rid of all of the Democratic wealth
redistribution programs (welfare, medicaid, medicare) etc."The
GOP has done a great job selling the narrative that it is the Democrats that put
forth all of the "redistribution programs"Can you point me
to a Republican who is for ending medicare or SS? Did you notice that it
was the GOP controlled government that championed NCLB and Medicare Part d
(largest entitlement expansion in decades). Voted for by all current GOP
leadership - Boehner, McConnell, Canter, Ryan.Bottom line is that
the GOP is just as likely to spend big (even on entitlements) when they are in
power. They only show fiscal restraint when they are out of power.And the sad thing is that the proposal is to reduce the tax credit to only 2
children. Can anyone provide info on what $$ increase that means
for the average Utahn? I bet it is very small.
@Hamathm. I have to agree with Joeblow. Republicans are slamming democrats in
Florida, in political ads for taking money away from medicare. All
republicans know that taking away medicare and social security are political
To those of you who want to make large families unequal when they are taxed,
just how do you reconcile your posts with the 14th Amendment that some of you
demand be used to allow same-sex marriage. On the one hand, you demand full
equality, but when it hits your wallet, you want special status. Isn't
that always the way it is. You'll for anything that helps you, but when it
comes time to open your wallet to benefit someone else, you cry
"foul".Some people choose to not have children. Some
"marriages" can never produce children. But, some people in Utah have
large families. You want to punish them by making them pay $150 per child more
in taxes than you pay. YOU have your exemption. YOU, your wife and two
children have their exemptions. But you think that you are special. You demand
that others pay a hirer price to live in YOUR society. You want them to
shoulder a larger share of the tax burden than you bare.Judge Shelby
will throw you and your ideas out of his court room.
So THAT is what this is all about? $150 per child per year. Let me
see. That amounts to less than .0001875 of the cost of that years education.The family with 6 kids is getting over $600,000 worth of education. How
much of that do you think comes out of their pocket?And still they
complain. Wow. Just WOW.Some people wouldn't recognize a
sweet deal (or an entitlement) if it landed in their own pocket.
JoeBlow,This is about punishing families. This is about having the
government decide that two children is the "right" number per family.
This is about giving some people exemptions and refusing to give other people
the same exemption. This is about giving schools $200,000 each with no strings
attached, no oversight, no justification. This is about one class of people in
Utah telling another class that they are undesireable. This is about those who
dislike children telling children that they don't matter. This
is about a Democrat in Utah telling Utah families that she will make their life
miserable because she has the power to do that. This is plain and
pure discrimination. If you're in favor of discrimination, you'll
like the bill. If you're for the unequal taxation of people, you'll
like the bill. If you're in favor of penalizing large families,
you'll like the bill. If you're in favor of giving schools tax money
to do with as they please with no accountability, you'll like the bill.As for me, there is nothing in the bill to like. Nothing at all.
As a parent of four children who are now adults, let me add a little
perspective. When my kids were in public school, I was early in my career and
was not earning much. Taking away the two exemptions would have been somewhat
difficult. Raising kids is expensive. But it's an investment that pays off
in the future for all of society. Now that my kids are grown and I am saving for
retirement, I can afford to pay more taxes, which I am glad to do to help out
those who are now in the position I was in ten to twenty years ago.Also, I figure it is in my own best interest to support a strong school
system, because when today's junior high and high school students have been
in the workforce a few years, their taxes will help to pay for my Social
Security and Medicare. We're a society, folks; that means we
help each other out. It's not each man for himself (or each woman for
herself). So, conservatives, please get off the Darwinist soapbox.
"If you're for the unequal taxation of people, you'll like the
bill. "Seriously Mike, How can you say that.Take 2
Families.Family 1 - Mom, Dad, Kid 1 - Salary $75K House value
$200KFamily 2 - Mom, Dad, Kid 1, Kid 2, Kid 3, Kid 4, Kid 5 - Salary
$75K, house value $200K.Family 1 pays more in taxes and uses less of
the schools.How is that NOT unequal treatment? Why should
family 1 pay more in taxes than family 2?
@Mike Richards. Now you are for helping others? How many times have you said
Obamacare is redistribution of wealth and unconstitutional?Just
yesterday you commented on SB139's faulty logic, which is about a bill that
would levy a tax on emission free vehicles. You were in favor of a user fee or
tax for emission free vehicles. You said, "A car is useless
without roads. Electric vehicles do not pay fuel taxes. High efficiency vehicles
pay a very small amount of fuel taxes, yet both kinds of vehicles require that
roads be built and maintained." Schools require more resources with more
kids do they not?You also said "A car getting 15 miles per
gallon will pay a 1.63 cents per mile tax. A car getting 50 mpg will pay 0.49
cents per mile traveled. An electric car will pay nothing. They all use the same
road". Big families and small families use the same schools, do
they not? But you our outraged larger families should pay a little more. So you are in favor of other people opening their wallet for you, not
the other way around
Excuse Joe Blow....Just how is Family 1 paying more taxes? Look at
all the tax credits you can take on your Federal return BEYOND the deduction for
children (remember State tax is based off you federal tax).People
with large families takes deduction for children. while families with less
children can take other deduction like installing energy efficient devices,
business expenses, Profit/Loss of stocks, etc...So while the larger
family gets dependent deductions, it does not always mean the people who have no
children or fewer children get not equal or greater deductions.This
whole thing against larger families getting some type of break is a farse. If
you don't think so, then look at how much money a large family spends in
the economy and how much a family that has no children spends... each generates
revenues for business, who in turn pays state taxes.
An entitlement is an entitlement whether it is an entitlement given to senior
citizens (social security), whether it is an entitlement given to the poor
(welfare, food stamps ACA), whether it is a tax break for a new business we want
in our community, or tax breaks for oil companies or private jets, or tax break
for having more children. This legislation is not an attack on
large families, it simply trying to get large families to get some
"skin" in the game using a favorite far right term when it comes to the
cost of educating their children. If this were an attack on large families,
then we would see a proposal that would reduce my taxes because I have no
children in the system and raise taxes large families taxes. I see no where in
this proposal where my taxes will go down, and I will still be paying more than
the family with 4 children for education, and I am ok with that because we
should all have skin in the game when it comes to public education.
I agree that families with more kids should be paying more for their education
(not less). But education is a community good/service. There is a clear
community interest in having a good education system (whether you have kids or
not). It shouldn't be funded ONLY by parents with kids in school (because
the school system benefits the whole community). But there should be a way for
families with more kids to pay more.The current way of funding
schools (property tax) doesn't take family size into account. Maybe the best solution would be to do away with the income tax deduction for
having children. But governments are used to encouraging behaviors that
benefit society (like having children, having a mortgage, investing for
retirement, etc)... and the easiest way to manipulate the population they have
found is... the tax code (give tax breaks for having children, having a
mortgage, tax breaks for retirement savings, etc).So I don't
expect the deduction to encourage people to have children will go away. As
long as government sees having children as something they want to encourage.
The only difference between a Democrat and Republican is how they spend our
money. Do we invest or do we spend it on tax breaks for those not in need? For
your information, those posting on this site receive more tax subsidies than
those on Welfare, SNAP and Unemployment in the form of deductions and those with
extra kids receive even more. The argument should be "all in, no one left
out" and yes there is enough money to pay for it. You just have to quit the
annual special interest quest on Capital Hill.
At the same time, conservatives rail against poor people having kids claiming
some use it to exploit the system to increase benefits... then again the
stereotypical Utah family is white, not black or Hispanic so you know, I guess
the "welfare queen" argument doesn't apply here...
ugottabkidn,How do you know "those posting on this site receive more
tax subsidies than those on Welfare, SNAP and Unemployment"?Just
another politically biased stereotype based assumption?Truth is...
You have no idea what income bracket the people who post to this site are in, or
what business they are in, or even what personal philosophy or political bend
they are.Not everybody believes the political assumptions you
know.===RE: "The only difference between a Democrat
and Republican is how they spend our money"...That's mostly
true. One tends to spend it on Defense. The other tends to spend it on
entitlements. I like the Federal Government making sure we have a first rate
Defense/military (I see that clearly mandated in the Constitution). I
don't see where it's their job to send me paychecks for being
unemployed, being retired, etc, in the Constitution.The other
difference is... how much money Democrats are comfortable taking from your
pay-check. One has a lot higher goal than the other.
The left wing will stop at nothing in its attempt to destroy the traditional
family. If the left cannot destroy it directly, it will be happy to do so
indirectly by taxing it out of existence. The slumbering masses must
awaken and rise up before the left wing socialists destroy American society.
Does the public really want America to become just a European-style
post-Christian socialist republic? Of not, it is time to act.
those darned seniors, demanding so much more from our social services structures
than younger people, more health care, more social servies, etc, and they have
AUDACITY to claim an extra exemption on both the state and federal tax
returns.Those darned blind people, demanding so much more from our
social services structures than sighted people, more health care, more social
servies, etc, and they have AUDACITY to claim an extra exemption on both the
state and federal tax returns.get the picture?If our
liberal friends are so demanding of equal treatment, why are they not SCREAMING
for the removal of the extra exemptions for the elderly and the blind? No, despite their misgotten claims of wanting to care for those less
fortunate, they really just want to punish people with more kids.I
think they may just want to implement the Chinese 1-child policy, enforcing it
through the tax codeAs Hamath points out, large families contribute
more to the economy than is measured just in income tax reciept - they pay more
in sales taxes and generate more economic activity to raise those kids than do
I'm of two minds on the conservative reaction to the effort to limit tax
shelters for having kids:-On one hand I'm happy to help pay for
the education of kids, they are the future, they'll become tomorrow's
leaders and bread winners, etc.-On the other hand, this reaction is
ridiculous hypocrisy, given the conservative instinct to denigrate Social
Security and Medicare as "Pyramid Schemes", and generally frown up
social spending as being either unwise, or un-constitutional.Overall, my only hesitation in supporting ongoing uneven taxation to support
education is that with the prevailing culture, producing more kids will produce
more people who view social spending as evil, except how it benefits them, of
course.Hypocrisy is just a bad way to live, especially as it gets
engrained and becomes multi-generational.
To "Karen Van Winkle" since the money is not making it to the kids, lets
see where it goes. The last time the funding was bumped up, none of the money
made it to the classrooms because it was put into the pension program for
retired teachers.The bigger question that you should be asking is
why do private schools have smaller classrooms when spending is about the same?
Private schools cost around $8000/yr. Right now we spend around $8000/yr per
studen when you include building costs for public schools. Why do the private
schools do so much better than the public schools? Is it even possible to
legislate our way to making public schools equal to the private schools?
Redshirt,I get what you're saying. It's hard to explain why a
private school gets better results than a public school when the per-pupil
spending is about the same. I guess Government inefficiency and the
requirement to teach to the lowest common denominator, along with no incentive
to push capable students to excel and instead encourage them to align with the
norm (so nobody gets their feelings hurt) may be part of it.But
don't try to turn this into a voucher discussion. We've already been
over that and it lost.
"I get what you're saying. It's hard to explain why a private
school gets better results than a public school"I have had a kid
in private and public school. The level of involvement by parents in the
private school was infinitely more than those in public school. There were
virtually NO discipline issues in the private schools. The learning
environment was very different.As for cost. Yes, the private school
cost less than what the state paid for public education. However, there were
lots of fundraisers and the teachers were paid less. Additionally, there was no
bus system, or it came with an additional cost.
Karen,Horace Mann, an early advocate of public education would agree with
you. He promoted the idea that financial means should not play a role in
determining the availability of education.You put his idea in
practical terms with regard to our current system. “High quality education
benefits the entire society, which is why everyone's taxes (parents and
non-parents alike) help pay for it.”You are also correct that
with each additional child, the family expense to feed them increases, even
though the funds available to do so do not. This leaves a smaller portion of the
family income available for education, which is why Horace advocated public
education in the first place. Parents in Horace's day often had to choose
between books and bread as they had not the means to do both. Society receives
its compensation when the public education loan is repaid by supporting their
benefactors later in their old age.The total amount of money
invested is not so much a product of the funding structure as it is a reflection
of the value we place on education vs other opportunities.
To "JoeBlow" I just want to make sure that everybody understands
this.Private schools do more with less money (public schools are
always doing fund raisers too) and have better results because of a culture
within the parents. The parents are more involved and make sure that discipline
is maintained.Now, how do we get that same culture into the public
Redshirt,I can answer you question about Private School vs Public
Schools...The answer is quite simple, the difference is that in the
private school they can be selective in who they allow to attend their schools.
They can pick and choose who they want.The public Schools by law
have to accept everyone, Special Needs, non English speaking, children with
behavioral problems, etc...That is why private can do a better job
on 8,000 /yr than public schools.
To "Confused" that does not explain why most private schools have test
scores that average the 90th percentile or better, while public schools
don't. Just being able to select students does not explain their results.
Private schools are able to get better results than the Spectrum programs at the
public schools. I know for a fact that the private schools have similar makeups
as the public schools.So again, tell us why they can do better. I
know of special needs kids that go to private schools and do very well.
Behavioral problem are just an excuse.So again, why do private
schools do better?
This gets my vote for letter of the year.
Everyone benefits from a functional education system. Whether I have zero or
five in the school system, I will benefit by having kids in school, learning,
and becoming contributing members of society. Asking everyone to pitch in for
something so basic to improving society across the board shouldn't be this
Redshirt,Just curious how you "know for a fact" that the
makeup of private schools is similar to that of public schools. What do you mean
by similar, that they both have students? Other than that there is very little
that is similar. I have never seen a statistical analysis comparing students in
public and private school that would support your claim. Saying
that being able to select students does not explain results shows a real lack of
understanding of the difference between private and public schools. Private
schools do not tolerate disruptive students, they do not tolerate students who
don't attend, they do not tolerate students who are not making progress
toward graduation. Where do all those students they do not tolerate end up?
You guessed it back at their neighborhood public schools. Parents
who pay significant money from their pocket for their child's education are
also typically have a higher level of education, are more involved in the
educational process and place a higher value on education. These have all
proven to correlate directly to higher test scores.
Redshirt.Here is the thing, it does explain it.. One - Private
schools at any time can expelled a disruptive student (my friends son was booted
for being disruptive).Two - Because parents are paying for at least
part of the private education, they are more involved with the student to
actually do the work. In public schools the number one issue is parental support
(I know because my wife teaches in Public School)Three - Yes some
special needs kids do well in private school, but are they "Extremely"
disabled? Public School requires that they take all students. Private Schools
can pick and choose.Fourth - To say that selected students does not
explain how their scores are better is "strange". One
suggestion, please look at the "actual" test scores of private vs public
schools, you would be surprised just how close they really are.
To "Fred44" it is called statistics. It is highly improbable that a
private school would have a significantly different range of kids than a public
school. Since there is no correlation between wealth and IQ, it is quite
reasonable to assume this.To "Confused" you really are
confused.1. Public schools can expell students or put disruptive
students into detention. So there is no difference.2. Parents do
pay for public schools through income, sales, and property taxes. Not to
mention the cookie, candybar, PTA movie night, and other fund raisers that they
put on.3. It depends on what you consider extremely disabled. The
extremly disabled are unable to go even to a standard public school. However,
most private schools have specialists to handle disabled or handicapped
students. St. Olaf's school in Bountiful has such resources.4.
The schools do not select the students. The parents of the students select the
school. There is a difference.
Redshirt...I think you need to go back and do some research my
friend..CounterPoint 1 - Yes, they can expel him from school for a
time period. But the offense has to be pretty severe to have this happen. Even
then, the only thing the kid will get at the worse is Transferred.CounterPoint 2. Wow really? taxes is your best come back? Here is the deal,
EVERYONE pays taxes, there is no getting out of it. but when you pay out of your
own pocket (after taxes) it has a bigger influence on how the parent supports
the student.CounterPoint 3. If you think extremely disable children
do not go to public school, may I suggest you go to your local school and check
that out. According to ADA law, a school must accomadate any disabled student
who wants to attend the school. They spend MILLIONS of education dollars to
accomadate these students.CounterPoint4 - The Parents may choose
which Private school they want their children to attend, but it is up to the
School to accept them as a student.
To "Confused"Reality 1: Schools expell students for minor
things. A recent case where a student was expelled because he appeared to be
intimidating another student. The fact was he was defending another student
against a bully.Reality 2: Paying is paying. You claimed that the
public schools were not being paid for by the parents, when in actuality they
are. You are just whining about the middleman.Reality 3: Severly
handicapped students are put into special schools that can meet their needs.
There are private schools set up to handle the severly handicapped. Even the
more mildly handicapped are also taken care of at the schools. They spend
THOUSANDS of dollars retaining special-Ed specialists.Reality 4:
You agree that the private schools are not just selecting the top students.
They accept students based on the willingness of the parents to pay.
Redshirt,You said "To "Fred44" it is called
statistics". So where are your statisics? In the next breath you say
"It is highly improbable that a private school would have a significantly
different range of kids than a public school". So is it statistics or
highly improbable in your mind? I have never met anyone that works private or
public school system that would say that public and private school students are
not significantly different in any measurement. It is virtually
impossible for a traditional public school to expel a student today. Suspend
for a few days yes, expel no. The rules are not even close to the same, the
clientele is not the same, and the mission is not the same.
The solution is simple and completely beyond the reach of local government:
Move if you're that passionate about a taxation issue you believe unfair.
If you have a little more patience you could vote. Econ 101 tells us your
choice is based on what your alternatives are.
What people fail to realize is how our current society would COLLAPSE if people
stopped having babies. The problem is, babies are really really expensive (trust
me). So, if you look at children in terms of a public good, then parents of
children are already shouldering in a major way the costs of sustaining society.
(You're welcome, by the way.) The $150 refund per child is a drop in the
bucket compared to the overall costs of child rearing.